Better in the Post: Shaq or Kareem?

[70sFan]

I doubt Kareem was ever that heavy, but even if I give him that Shaq was around 325 or so in 2000/2001. He had a stronger upper and lower body. Kareem would get pushed around pretty easily unfortunately. Not heavy enough, strong enough or athletic enough to defend big diesel.

Kareem reached 267 lbs in the mid 1980s. I don't think you realize how gigantic he truly was. We're talking about legit 7'2 man who was a legit athlete. You're acting like he's Bol Bol or something, but he was a well proportioned man.

Of course Shaq was bigger and stronger, but let's not overreact. Kareem was bigger and stronger than someone like Mutombo.

A couple of things on this, If I remember correctly Kareem stepped on a scale in 1980 and was 267. He was actually above 280 by the end of his career, albeit he was really old at this point so I'm not sure how relevant that is. In 1974 he got up to around 245-250 so during his Laker's prime he was roughly 250-270. He was an excellent athlete with an ideal finesse build, he never suffered a major (non-self-inflicted injury) in 20 seasons, which is essentially unheard of. Great core strength specifically, which is underrated.

With that being said, yea I don't think Kareem stands much of a chance 1on1 against Shaq, his post-defense was one of the few parts of his game that left something to be desired. I think Shaq purely 1on1 isn't a great matchup for Kareem, much in the same way Hakeem didn't have a chance in hell of guarding Kareem 1on1, matchups can be weird sometimes.

I agree that Shaq would be a rough matchup for Kareem, I just disagree with the degree of this argumentation. It almost seems like some people believe that Shaq would break Kareem in half, even though a lot of smaller and less athletic players could give some resistance against him.

[falcolombardi]

Shaq would've had his own issues for sure with Kareem though I suspect he would've bullied him off the block for a lot of catches away from the basket. But the point is he would've had Kareem in foul trouble fairly quick. If you're saying they would've just doubled then sure...surely better ppp on that. Shaq might've given up some buckets but he wouldn't have needed a double.

If bill walton needed doubles against kareem then you can bet your peanut farm shaq would need doubles against kareem

If Tim Duncan needed doubles against Shaq then you can bet your California Zinfandel orchard that Kareem would need doubles upon doubles against Shaq.

When did i argue that kareem would defend shaq straigt up with no kind of help?

[ty 4191]

Not any more than someone like Hakeem, who did quite well. Kareem wasn't a perfect defender against Shaq, but people often underestimate his size and strength.

I mean if anything you overstate his size and strength. He was rather lanky, and from the tape i’ve watched he doesn’t strike me as particularly strong either. He looked underwhelming in those few finals he went against Moses.

That skinny frame would have no hope of keeping Shaq out of the post.

Kareem was 37 in 1983 finals, I think it would be better to look at his physical profile when he was 6 years younger.

Kareem was 250 lbs in his peak and he had strong legs, that's not a skinny frame at all.

[VanWest82]

If bill walton needed doubles against kareem then you can bet your peanut farm shaq would need doubles against kareem

If Tim Duncan needed doubles against Shaq then you can bet your California Zinfandel orchard that Kareem would need doubles upon doubles against Shaq.

When did i argue that kareem would defend shaq straigt up with no kind of help?

You didn't. I was just responding in kind. I still think the issue is Shaq could've guarded Kareem straight up (and perhaps gotten torched but the defense wouldn't have been compromised) whereas Kareem would've needed consistent help to avoid fouling out of the game. But even more likely than that is that if they actually played in the same era, Kareem's team would've had multiple enforcers on the roster so Kareem wouldn't have had to guard Shaq and could be the one providing the help a la KG with Rasho and Ervin Johnson, Olowakandi, etc.

[70sFan]

If Tim Duncan needed doubles against Shaq then you can bet your California Zinfandel orchard that Kareem would need doubles upon doubles against Shaq.

When did i argue that kareem would defend shaq straigt up with no kind of help?

You didn't. I was just responding in kind. I still think the issue is Shaq could've guarded Kareem straight up (and perhaps gotten torched but the defense wouldn't have been compromised) whereas Kareem would've needed consistent help to avoid fouling out of the game. But even more likely than that is that if they actually played in the same era, Kareem's team would've had multiple enforcers on the roster so Kareem wouldn't have had to guard Shaq and could be the one providing the help.

So you think that Kareem would foul Shaq, but Shaq would just give up points? That's a strange way of argumentation...

[capfan33]

Kareem reached 267 lbs in the mid 1980s. I don't think you realize how gigantic he truly was. We're talking about legit 7'2 man who was a legit athlete. You're acting like he's Bol Bol or something, but he was a well proportioned man.

Of course Shaq was bigger and stronger, but let's not overreact. Kareem was bigger and stronger than someone like Mutombo.

A couple of things on this, If I remember correctly Kareem stepped on a scale in 1980 and was 267. He was actually above 280 by the end of his career, albeit he was really old at this point so I'm not sure how relevant that is. In 1974 he got up to around 245-250 so during his Laker's prime he was roughly 250-270. He was an excellent athlete with an ideal finesse build, he never suffered a major (non-self-inflicted injury) in 20 seasons, which is essentially unheard of. Great core strength specifically, which is underrated.

With that being said, yea I don't think Kareem stands much of a chance 1on1 against Shaq, his post-defense was one of the few parts of his game that left something to be desired. I think Shaq purely 1on1 isn't a great matchup for Kareem, much in the same way Hakeem didn't have a chance in hell of guarding Kareem 1on1, matchups can be weird sometimes.

I agree that Shaq would be a rough matchup for Kareem, I just disagree with the degree of this argumentation. It almost seems like some people believe that Shaq would break Kareem in half, even though a lot of smaller and less athletic players could give some resistance against him.

Yea bad matchup but Kareem would probably do better than most players against him, I definitely agree that Kareem was stronger and more able than most of the players Shaq matched up against.

[VanWest82]

When did i argue that kareem would defend shaq straigt up with no kind of help?

You didn't. I was just responding in kind. I still think the issue is Shaq could've guarded Kareem straight up (and perhaps gotten torched but the defense wouldn't have been compromised) whereas Kareem would've needed consistent help to avoid fouling out of the game. But even more likely than that is that if they actually played in the same era, Kareem's team would've had multiple enforcers on the roster so Kareem wouldn't have had to guard Shaq and could be the one providing the help.

So you think that Kareem would foul Shaq, but Shaq would just give up points? That's a strange way of argumentation...

Why? I'd rather put the opposing star in foul trouble as I'm scoring points. I'm tempted to take back my comment about perhaps getting torched because truth is Shaq was a pretty stout post defender. His problems were mostly in guarding PnR. That's where Kareem has him beat.

[70sFan]

You didn't. I was just responding in kind. I still think the issue is Shaq could've guarded Kareem straight up (and perhaps gotten torched but the defense wouldn't have been compromised) whereas Kareem would've needed consistent help to avoid fouling out of the game. But even more likely than that is that if they actually played in the same era, Kareem's team would've had multiple enforcers on the roster so Kareem wouldn't have had to guard Shaq and could be the one providing the help.

So you think that Kareem would foul Shaq, but Shaq would just give up points? That's a strange way of argumentation...

Why? I'd rather put the opposing star in foul trouble as I'm scoring points. I'm tempted to take back my comment about perhaps getting torched because truth is Shaq was a pretty stout post defender. His problems were mostly in guarding PnR. That's where Kareem has him beat.

Shaq was a good post defender, but he wasn't consistent and commited enough to do a good job against peak Kareem. Remember that Kareem did reasonably well against Artis Gilmore, who was more defensive focused and just as strong as Shaq.

[No-more-rings]

Kareem was 37 in 1983 finals, I think it would be better to look at his physical profile when he was 6 years younger.

Kareem was 250 lbs in his peak and he had strong legs, that's not a skinny frame at all.

I doubt Kareem was ever that heavy, but even if I give him that Shaq was around 325 or so in 2000/2001. He had a stronger upper and lower body. Kareem would get pushed around pretty easily unfortunately. Not heavy enough, strong enough or athletic enough to defend big diesel.

Kareem reached 267 lbs in the mid 1980s. I don't think you realize how gigantic he truly was. We're talking about legit 7'2 man who was a legit athlete. You're acting like he's Bol Bol or something, but he was a well proportioned man.

Of course Shaq was bigger and stronger, but let's not overreact. Kareem was bigger and stronger than someone like Mutombo.

If Kareem was so big and heavy then, why did he struggle with Moses’ tenacity?

[70sFan]

I doubt Kareem was ever that heavy, but even if I give him that Shaq was around 325 or so in 2000/2001. He had a stronger upper and lower body. Kareem would get pushed around pretty easily unfortunately. Not heavy enough, strong enough or athletic enough to defend big diesel.

Kareem reached 267 lbs in the mid 1980s. I don't think you realize how gigantic he truly was. We're talking about legit 7'2 man who was a legit athlete. You're acting like he's Bol Bol or something, but he was a well proportioned man.

Of course Shaq was bigger and stronger, but let's not overreact. Kareem was bigger and stronger than someone like Mutombo.

If Kareem was so big and heavy then, why did he struggle with Moses’ tenacity?

Because he was old.

[VanWest82]

So you think that Kareem would foul Shaq, but Shaq would just give up points? That's a strange way of argumentation...

Why? I'd rather put the opposing star in foul trouble as I'm scoring points. I'm tempted to take back my comment about perhaps getting torched because truth is Shaq was a pretty stout post defender. His problems were mostly in guarding PnR. That's where Kareem has him beat.

Shaq was a good post defender, but he wasn't consistent and commited enough to do a good job against peak Kareem. Remember that Kareem did reasonably well against Artis Gilmore, who was more defensive focused and just as strong as Shaq.

Gilmore was not as big or strong as Shaq. Do we really need to debate this again?

Overall, I like Kareem's post game better. He had better skill, an unguardable shot, and length that allowed for angles other guys couldn't get to. I just don't like the post match up with Shaq, specifically. Kareem never saw anything like that because there hasn't been anyone that big and explosive. I have to think that had they matched up Kareem would've focused on beating Shaq down the court for easy baskets and playing PnR to get Shaq in space like everyone else did.

[tsherkin]

Maybe I will do it at some point, but for now I'm working on Timmy Duncan.

Another fine example. Duncan was a very polished post player. Lacked the kind of efficiency we saw from Kareem or Shaq, but a really well-rounded post player and I'd love to see where he stacks up. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say his action from 3-10 feet was as or more efficient than Shaq and that the difference was made up in finishing right at the rim and foul draw. Timmy had a gorgeous array of moves, fantastic footwork and seemed at ease going to either hand.

[70sFan]

Gilmore was not as big or strong as Shaq. Do we really need to debate this again?

He was lighter, but he was absurdly strong. I don't know how you can be so sure about it. I wonder, how many games of prime A-Train have you seen?

Gilmore was also more focused defender than Shaq, who often didn't care about defensive positioning and relied strictly on his physical talents.

Overall, I like Kareem's post game better. He had better skill, an unguardable shot, and length that allowed for angles other guys couldn't get to. I just don't like the post match up with Shaq, specifically. Kareem never saw anything like that because there hasn't been anyone that big and explosive. I have to think that had they matched up Kareem would've focused on beating Shaq down the court for easy baskets and playing PnR to get Shaq in space like everyone else did.

That's fair, Shaq was certainly a very tough matchup for any center.

[70sFan]

Maybe I will do it at some point, but for now I'm working on Timmy Duncan.

Another fine example. Duncan was a very polished post player. Lacked the kind of efficiency we saw from Kareem or Shaq, but a really well-rounded post player and I'd love to see where he stacks up. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say his action from 3-10 feet was as or more efficient than Shaq and that the difference was made up in finishing right at the rim and foul draw. Timmy had a gorgeous array of moves, fantastic footwork and seemed at ease going to either hand.

I don't have enough sample of size for now, but it will be finished at some point. I hope to track at least 35 games from his two MVP seasons.

[tsherkin]

Maybe I will do it at some point, but for now I'm working on Timmy Duncan.

Another fine example. Duncan was a very polished post player. Lacked the kind of efficiency we saw from Kareem or Shaq, but a really well-rounded post player and I'd love to see where he stacks up. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say his action from 3-10 feet was as or more efficient than Shaq and that the difference was made up in finishing right at the rim and foul draw. Timmy had a gorgeous array of moves, fantastic footwork and seemed at ease going to either hand.

I don't have enough sample of size for now, but it will be finished at some point. I hope to track at least 35 games from his two MVP seasons.

That will be very interesting, and I'm looking forward to the result.

[falcolombardi]

Maybe I will do it at some point, but for now I'm working on Timmy Duncan.

Another fine example. Duncan was a very polished post player. Lacked the kind of efficiency we saw from Kareem or Shaq, but a really well-rounded post player and I'd love to see where he stacks up. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say his action from 3-10 feet was as or more efficient than Shaq and that the difference was made up in finishing right at the rim and foul draw. Timmy had a gorgeous array of moves, fantastic footwork and seemed at ease going to either hand.

Shaq was not in the same planet as kareem efficiency wise, i wouldnt group them like that

Shaq and duncan efficiency are way closer than shaq and kareem

[tsherkin]

Shaq was not in the same planet as kareem efficiency wise, i wouldnt group them like that

Mmmm, Shaq was a career 57.8% TS guy relative to Kareem's career 59.2%. 94-03, his scoring peak during which he averaged 28.1 ppg, he posted 58.4% TS.

Kareem posted 58.3% TS pre-Magic, scoring 28.6 from 70-79. Once Magic was drafted, he averaged 20.6 ppg and only hit 24+ ppg in the first two seasons. 80-89, he posted 60.6% TS.


Duncan posted 55.1% TS on his career, which is a larger drop-off from Shaq (-2.7%) than from Kareem to Shaq (-1.4%).

98-07, Duncan averaged 21.8 ppg on 55.4%. That's 3% worse than Shaq's scoring peak, which was +0.1% compared to Kareem's first decade in the league.

I think they're pretty eminently comparable once you factor out one of the greatest playmakers in league history and reduced volume.

[70sFan]

Another fine example. Duncan was a very polished post player. Lacked the kind of efficiency we saw from Kareem or Shaq, but a really well-rounded post player and I'd love to see where he stacks up. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say his action from 3-10 feet was as or more efficient than Shaq and that the difference was made up in finishing right at the rim and foul draw. Timmy had a gorgeous array of moves, fantastic footwork and seemed at ease going to either hand.

I don't have enough sample of size for now, but it will be finished at some point. I hope to track at least 35 games from his two MVP seasons.

That will be very interesting, and I'm looking forward to the result.

I also may include 2001 playoffs for Shaq sample, if I find enough time.

[70sFan]

Shaq was not in the same planet as kareem efficiency wise, i wouldnt group them like that

Mmmm, Shaq was a career 57.8% TS guy relative to Kareem's career 59.2%. 94-03, his scoring peak during which he averaged 28.1 ppg, he posted 58.4% TS.

Kareem posted 58.3% TS pre-Magic, scoring 28.6 from 70-79. Once Magic was drafted, he averaged 20.6 ppg and only hit 24+ ppg in the first two seasons. 80-89, he posted 60.6% TS.


Duncan posted 55.1% TS on his career, which is a larger drop-off from Shaq (-2.7%) than from Kareem to Shaq (-1.4%).

98-07, Duncan averaged 21.8 ppg on 55.4%. That's 3% worse than Shaq's scoring peak, which was +0.1% compared to Kareem's first decade in the league.

I think they're pretty eminently comparable once you factor out one of the greatest playmakers in league history and reduced volume.

Well, as always it would be important to take these numbers in context. Shaq peaked at +8.3 rTS% in 2003, which is very impressive number. Kareem beat this value 3 times in 1970-79 period, as well as having two another seasons at +8.2% (not to mention 1980 and 1981 with rookie/sophomore Magic).

I know that comparing to league average isn't always perfect, but we know that it was definitely harder to score in efficient way in the 1970s than in Shaq's prime. Kareem peaked higher in terms of scoring efficiency and I see no reason to believe that it wouldn't hold up in the early 2000s.

[falcolombardi]

Shaq was not in the same planet as kareem efficiency wise, i wouldnt group them like that

Mmmm, Shaq was a career 57.8% TS guy relative to Kareem's career 59.2%. 94-03, his scoring peak during which he averaged 28.1 ppg, he posted 58.4% TS.

Kareem posted 58.3% TS pre-Magic, scoring 28.6 from 70-79. Once Magic was drafted, he averaged 20.6 ppg and only hit 24+ ppg in the first two seasons. 80-89, he posted 60.6% TS.


Duncan posted 55.1% TS on his career, which is a larger drop-off from Shaq (-2.7%) than from Kareem to Shaq (-1.4%).

98-07, Duncan averaged 21.8 ppg on 55.4%. That's 3% worse than Shaq's scoring peak, which was +0.1% compared to Kareem's first decade in the league.

I think they're pretty eminently comparable once you factor out one of the greatest playmakers in league history and reduced volume.

True shooting in shaq era was higher, there was more spacing and easier rules for offense (illegal defense for main one)

That 1.5% difference is underselling the gap